Feed Composition

for Cattle and Sheep

Fact Sheet No. 1.615

Livestock Series| Management

by T.L. Stanton and S. LeValley*

Nutrition research spanning more than
100 years has defined the nutrients required
by animals. Using this information, rations
can be formulated from feeds and ingredients
to meet these requirements. Animals fed these
rations should not only remain healthy but
be productive and efficient.
The ultimate goal of feed analysis is
to predict the productive response of
animals when they are fed rations of a given
composition. This is the real reason for
information on feedstuff composition.

Table Values for Feedstuff

Composition
Feedstuffs vary in composition. Unlike
chemicals that are chemically pure and
therefore have a constant composition, feeds
vary in their composition for many reasons.
Actual analysis of a feed to be used in a ration
is more accurate than tabular data. Obtain
and use actual analysis whenever possible.
Often, however, it is either impossible
to determine actual compositional data, or
there is insufficient time to obtain an analysis.
Tabulated data are the next best source of
information. When using tabulated data,
remember that feeds vary in their compo
sition. The organic constituents (e.g., crude
protein, ether extract, crude fiber, acid
detergent fiber and neutral detergent fiber)
can vary as much as 15 percent, the mineral
constituents as much as 30 percent, and
the energy values at least 10 percent, from
tablevalues.
Therefore, the values shown can only be
guides. For this reason they are called typical
values. They are not averages of published
information. Some judgment was used in
arriving at some of the values in the hope that
the values will be realistic for use in cattle and
sheep rations.

Feeds can be chemically analyzed for

many things that may or may not be related
to the response of the animals to which
they are fed. In the accompanying table,
certain chemical constituents are shown.
The response of cattle and sheep when fed a
feed, however, can be termed the biological
response to the feed in question. This is a
function of its chemical composition and the
ability of the animal to derive useful nutrients
from the feed.
The latter relates to the digestibility
or availability of a nutrient in the feed for
absorption into the body and its ultimate
efficiency of use in the animal. This also
depends on the nutrient status of the
animal and the productive or physiological
function being performed by the animal.
Ground fence posts and shelled corn may
have the same gross energy value in a bomb
calorimeter, but have markedly different
useful energy value (TDN, digestible energy,
net energy) when consumed by the animal.
That means that the biological attributes
of a feed have much greater meaning in
predicting the productive response of
animals. However, they are more difficult
to accurately determine because there is
an interaction between the chemical com
position of the feed and the digestive
and metabolic capabilities of the animal
being fed.

Quick Facts
Obtain and use actual
feedstuff analysis whenever
possible for ration formulation.
If feedstuff compositional data
is impossible to determine,
tabulated data is the next best
source of information.
Since moisture content of
feeds can vary greatly, it is
important to express feedstuff
composition on a dry
matterbasis.

Using Information
Contained in the Table
Feed Names
The most obvious or commonly used feed
names are given in the table. Feeds designated
as fresh are feeds that are grazed or fed as
fresh cut materials.

Colorado State University

Extension. 10/99. Revised 6/10.
www.ext.colostate.edu

Former Colorado State University Extension feedlot

specialist and professor, animal sciences. Reviewed
by S. LeValley, Extension Sheep/Youth specialist and
assistant professor, animal sciences department. 6/2010
*

Dry Matter
Typical dry matter (DM) values are
shown. However, the moisture content of
feeds can vary greatly. Thus DM content
can be the biggest reason for variation in
the composition of feedstuffs on an as fed
basis. For this reason, the composition
of chemical constituents and biological
attributes of feeds are shown on a DM
basis. Because DM can vary greatly, and
because one of the factors regulating total
feed intake is the DM content of feeds,
ration formulation on a DM basis is more
sound than using as fed basis. To convert
the values shown to an as fed basis,
multiply the decimal equivalent of the DM
content times the compositional value
shown in the table.
Protein
Crude protein (CP) values are shown
for each feed. Crude protein is determined
by taking the Kjeldahl nitrogen times
(100/16 or 6.25). (Proteins contain 16
percent nitrogen on average.) Crude
protein does not give any information on
the actual protein and nonprotein content
of a feed. Digestible protein has been
included in many feed composition tables,
but because of the large contribution of
body protein to the apparent protein in the
feces, digestible protein is more misleading
than CP. Calculate digestible protein from
the CP content of the ration fed to cattle or
sheep by the following equation: % DP =
0.9 (% CP) - 3, where % DP and % CP are
the ration values on a dry matter basis.
Rumen by-pass protein, or
undegraded intake protein (UIP),
represents the percent of protein that
passes through the rumen without being
degraded by rumen microorganisms. Like
other biological attributes, these values are
not constant. By-pass values for many feeds
have not been determined. Reasonable
estimates are difficult to make.
Degradable intake protein (DIP) is
used to meet the nitrogen requirements of
rumen micro-organisms. Nitrogen sources
such as urea are the most economical
sources of DIP. Balancing DIP and UIP
sources provides a more accurate way of
meeting the metabolizable protein needs
ofruminants.

Crude, Acid Detergent and Neutral

Detergent Fibers
After more than 100 years, crude fiber
(CF) is declining in popularity as a measure
of low digestible material in feeds. The
major problem with CF is that variable
amounts of lignin, which is not digestible,
are removed from various feeds in the CF
procedure. In the old scheme, the mate
rial removed was called nitrogen-free
extract (NFE) and was thought to be more
digestible than CF, even though many
feeds have been shown to have a higher
digestibility for CF than NFE. One reason
CF remained in the analytical scheme for
feedstuff analysis was its requirement for
the determination of TDN.
Newer procedures have developed
an alternate analytical scheme, namely,
acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral
detergent fiber (NDF). ADF is highly
related to digestibility in the animal. NDF is
related to voluntary intake of the feed and
the availability of net energy from digestible
energy. Both measures relate more directly
to predicted animal performance, so they
are more valuable than CF. Also, if TDN is
replaced by other measures of energy value,
there will be little use of the CF content of
feeds. As more complete data on the ADF
and NDF content of feeds are developed,
CF will be dropped.
Minerals
Values are shown for only certain
minerals. Calcium (Ca) and phosphorus
(P) are important minerals in most
feeding situations. Potassium (K) becomes
important as the level of concentrate
increases in the ration, or when nonprotein
nitrogen is substituted for intact protein.
Sulfur (S) also becomes more important as
the level of nonprotein nitrogen increases
in the ration.
Vitamins
Vitamins have been omitted from the
table. Only vitamin A is of general practical
importance in cattle and sheep feeding. The
vitamin A and carotene in feeds depend
largely on maturity and conditions at
harvest and the length and conditions of
storage. Therefore, it is probably unwise to
rely entirely on harvested feeds as a source
of vitamin A. Where roughages are being
fed that contain good green color or are

being fed as immature fresh forages (e.g.,

pasture), there will probably be sufficient
vitamin A.
Energy
Four measures of the energy value of
feeds are shown in the table. TDN is shown
simply because there are more TDN values
for feeds, and because this has become a
standard system for expressing the energy
value of feeds for cattle and sheep. There
are several technical problems with TDN,
however. There is a poor relationship
between crude fiber and NFE digestibility
in certain feeds. TDN also overestimates
the value of roughages compared to
concentrates in producing animals. Some
have argued that energy is not measured in
pounds or percent, so TDN is not a valid
measure of energy. However, this is more a
scientific argument than a criticism of the
predictive value of TDN.
Digestible energy (DE) values also are
shown. Many studies have shown there is
a constant relationship between TDN and
DE: There are 2 Mcals of DE per pound
of TDN. Obviously, DE can be calculated
by multiplying .02 times the percent
TDN content. Because DE is measured
in calories, it is technically preferred over
TDN. With greater emphasis on ADF and
NDF as replacements for CF and the use
of the bomb calorimeter to measure DE
directly, use of TDN should gradually
decrease. It should be apparent, however,
that the ability of TDN and DE to predict
animal performance is exactly equal.
Interest in the use of net energy (NE)
in evaluating feeds for cattle and sheep
was renewed with the development of the
California net energy system. The main
reason is the improved predictability of
results depending on whether feed energy
is being used for maintenance (NEm) or
growth (NEg). The major problem in using
these NE values is predicting feed intake
and, therefore, the proportion of feed that
will be used for maintenance and growth.
Some use only the NEg values in
formulating rations. This suffers the
equal but opposite criticism mentioned
for TDN NEg overestimates the
feeding value of concentrates relative to
roughages. Others use the average of the
two NE values, but this would be true
only for cattle or sheep eating twice their
maintenance requirement.

The most accurate way to use these NE

values to formulate rations is to use the
NEm value plus a multiplier times the NEg
value, all divided by one plus the multiplier.
The multiplier is the level of feed intake
above maintenance relative to maintenance.
For example, if 700-pound cattle are
expected to eat 18 pounds of feed, 8 pounds
of which are required for maintenance,

then the NE value of the ration would be:

NE = [NEg + (10/8) (NEg)] / [i + (10/8)]
There is no question as to the theoretical
superiority of NE over either DE or TDN
in predicting animal performance. This
superiority is lost, however, if only NEg
is used in formulating rations. So if NE is
used, some combination of NEm and NEg
isrequired.

Table 1. Typical composition of feeds for cattle and sheep. (All values except dry matter are shown on a dry matter basis.)
DM
%

CP
%

ByPass
%

EE
%

Zn
PPM

TDN
%

DE
Mcal/
lb.

NEm
Mcal/
lb.

NEg
Mcal/
lb.

Alfalfa cubes

91

18

35

2.0

Alfalfa dehydrated 17%

92

19

60

3.0

0.35

18

57

1.14

0.56

0.25

0.24

19

61

1.22

0.61

Alfalfa fresh

26

19

20

0.31

2.3

0.34

21

60

1.20

0.59

0.30

Alfalfa hay early bloom

90

18

Alfalfa hay midbloom

89

17

0.25

2.3

0.30

18

60

1.20

0.59

0.30

0.23

1.8

0.30

17

58

1.16

0.57

Alfalfa hay full bloom

88

0.26

1.3

0.20

1.7

0.29

17

53

1.06

0.52

0.18

Alfalfa hay mature

Alfalfa silage

1.3

0.19

1.4

0.25

17

50

1.00

0.49

0.12

1.5

0.28

2.4

0.30

17

54

1.08

0.53

0.20

1.5

0.28

2.4

0.30

17

58

1.16

0.57

0.26

24.20

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.30

1.6

0.17

29

50

1.00

0.49

0.12

0.15

1.5

0.15

60

1.20

0.59

0.30

0.3

0.05

2.0

0.15

49

0.98

0.48

0.11

0.1

0.42

0.5

0.16

25

83

1.66

0.89

0.60

0.0

0.45

0.7

0.06

75

1.50

0.78

0.50

0.0

0.40

0.1

0.15

81

1.62

0.87

0.58

0.1

0.05

1.4

0.26

84

1.68

0.91

0.61

34

59

0.8

0.10

0.2

0.22

68

1.36

0.69

0.41

34

59

0.7

0.08

0.2

0.22

72

1.44

0.74

0.47

16

27

47

0.6

0.10

1.8

0.36

11

76

1.52

0.80

0.52

0.5

16

27

47

0.6

0.10

1.8

0.36

11

76

1.52

0.80

0.52

1.4

25

0.7

0.24

4.8

0.45

20

58

1.16

0.57

0.26

2.0

10

38

1.2

0.22

5.7

0.57

52

1.04

0.51

0.16

80

80

1.3

0.3

0.26

0.1

0.43

61

1.22

0.61

0.31

2.5

34

0.3

0.14

1.0

0.05

28

50

1.00

0.49

0.12

95

13

11.6

77

27.0

12.74

0.2

2.50

290

16

0.32

0.26

0.00

Brewers grains wet

24

26

60

6.5

15

22

42

0.3

0.60

0.1

0.32

50

81

1.62

0.87

0.58

Brewers dried grain

92

28

60

7.5

15

22

42

0.3

0.60

0.1

0.32

50

81

1.62

0.87

0.58

Brewers yeast dried

94

48

1.0

0.1

1.56

1.8

0.41

41

79

1.58

0.84

0.55

Brome grass fresh immature

32

15

4.1

28

33

54

10

0.4

0.39

2.7

0.20

64

1.28

0.64

0.36

Brome grass hay

89

10

2.5

35

41

69

0.5

0.23

2.5

0.16

17

55

1.10

0.54

0.21

Calcium carbonate

99

0.0

99

39.0

0.04

0.0

0.09

0.00

0.00

0.00

Canarygrass hay

91

2.7

33

36

64

0.4

0.25

2.6

0.14

18

53

1.06

0.52

0.18

Carrot pulp

14

7.8

19

23

62

1.24

0.62

0.33

Carrot root fresh

12

10

1.4

10

0.4

0.34

2.7

0.17

83

1.66

0.89

0.60

Carrot tops

16

13

3.8

18

23

15

1.9

0.19

1.9

73

1.46

0.76

0.48

Cattle manure dried

92

17

2.6

34

37

55

14

1.2

1.00

0.5

1.78

240

38

0.76

0.39

0.00

Cheatgrass fresh immature

21

16

2.7

23

10

0.6

0.28

68

1.36

0.69

0.41

Clover ladino fresh

19

25

4.8

14

11

1.3

0.42

2.2

0.20

39

69

1.38

0.70

0.43

Clover ladino hay

90

21

2.0

22

32

36

1.7

0.32

2.4

0.22

17

61

1.22

0.61

0.31

Clover red fresh

24

18

4.0

24

33

44

1.7

0.26

2.0

0.17

23

64

1.28

0.64

0.36

ADF
%

NDF
%

Ash
%

Ca
%

P
%

K
%

S
%

29

34

45

11

1.3

0.23

1.9

26

35

45

11

1.4

0.25

2.7

2.2

27

32

44

1.6

0.32

20

2.2

29

35

47

1.4

25

2.0

30

38

50

10

1.4

16

30

1.8

34

41

56

90

14

35

1.7

38

45

59

30

18

20

3.0

30

35

46

Alfalfa silage wilted

36

17

25

3.0

30

35

46

Ammonium sulfate

99

132

0.0

Barley silage

32

10

25

4.0

34

10

0.3

Barley silage mature

40

35

4.0

34

10

0.2

Barley straw

88

1.9

42

57

82

Barley grain

89

12

30

2.0

20

Barley feed pearl byproduct

90

15

3.9

11

Barley grain screenings

89

13

2.6

Beans navy cull

90

24

1.4

Beet pulp wet

11

10

30

2.0

20

Beet pulp dried

91

35

0.8

21

Beet pulp wet with molasses

24

12

25

0.5

Beet pulp dried with molasses

92

12

25

Beet tops (sugar)

20

13

Beet top silage

25

10

Blood meal

92

Bluestem fresh mature

61

Bone meal steamed

Feedstuff

CF
%

Table 1. Continued.
DM
%

CP
%

ByPass
%

Clover red hay

88

15

2.9

Coffee grounds

88

13

15.0

Corn whole plant pelleted

91

45

2.4

21

Corn fodder

80

45

2.4

25

Corn stover mature

80

1.3

35

40

Corn silage milk stage

26

25

2.8

26

Corn silage mature well eared

36

40

2.7

23

Corn grain dent yellow

89

10

50

4.1

Corn grain hi-lysine

92

12

4.4

Corn and cob meal

87

50

3.7

Corn cobs

90

50

0.5

36

Corn bran

90

10

6.3

Corn gluten feed

90

26

2.9

Corn gluten meal

91

45

65

Defluorinated phosphate

99

Diammonium phosphate

98

115

Dicalcium phosphate

96

Distillers grain barley

90

Distillers grain corn

91

Distillers grain corn with solubles

Feedstuff

Distillers silage corn

Zn
PPM

TDN
%

DE
Mcal/
lb.

NEm
Mcal/
lb.

NEg
Mcal/
lb.

0.17

17

57

1.14

0.56

0.25

20

0.40

0.35

0.00

1.0

0.14

63

1.26

0.63

0.34

1.0

0.14

67

1.24

0.68

0.40

0.09

1.6

0.17

59

1.18

0.58

0.28

0.3

0.24

1.6

0.12

25

67

1.24

0.68

0.40

0.3

0.20

1.0

0.10

24

69

1.38

0.70

0.43

0.0

0.30

0.4

0.10

17

89

1.78

0.98

0.67

0.0

0.24

0.3

0.11

89

1.78

0.98

0.67

28

0.1

0.24

0.5

0.18

10

82

1.64

0.88

0.59

88

0.1

0.04

0.8

0.35

48

0.26

0.47

0.09

51

0.0

0.17

0.7

0.08

76

1.52

0.80

0.52

41

0.4

0.75

0.6

0.20

100

82

1.64

0.88

0.59

37

0.2

0.50

0.2

0.60

45

84

1.68

0.91

0.61

0.0

95

32.6

18.07

1.0

100

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.0

35

0.5

20.41

0.0

2.16

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.0

94

22.0

18.65

0.1

1.10

70

0.00

0.00

0.00

30

60

3.7

18

0.1

0.27

75

1.50

0.78

0.50

30

65

8.2

14

16

41

0.1

0.45

0.2

0.46

35

84

1.68

0.91

0.61

92

29

50

10.0

10

18

44

0.3

0.85

0.7

0.32

90

88

1.76

0.97

0.65

EE
%

CF
%

ADF
%

NDF
%

Ash
%

Ca
%

P
%

K
%

S
%

30

41

56

1.4

0.22

1.9

41

68

77

0.1

0.08

0.5

0.24

29

48

0.3

0.18

70

0.5

31

--

28

50

10

10
39

10
9

2.5

29

65

8.0

0.1

0.65

86

1.72

0.94

0.63

Distillers dried solubles

93

30

9.5

23

0.4

1.40

1.8

0.40

91

88

1.76

0.97

0.65

Fat animal poultry

99

99.0

0.0

0.00

0.0

195

3.90

2.38

1.82

Feathermeal hydrolized

94

91

50

3.3

20

20

0.2

0.78

0.3

1.80

53

68

1.36

0.69

0.41

Garbage municipal cooked

23

16

23.3

50

59

11

1.6

0.45

75

1.50

0.78

0.50

Grain screenings

90

14

5.5

14

0.5

0.43

17

65

1.30

0.65

0.37

Grain dust

92

10

2.5

15

10

0.3

0.18

42

73

1.46

0.76

0.48

Grape pomace stemless

91

12

7.5

32

50

53

0.6

0.06

0.6

24

30

0.60

0.37

0.00

Grass silage

26

12

20

4.6

34

38

66

0.8

0.22

2.0

29

61

1.22

0.61

0.31

Hominy feed

90

12

7.7

12

50

0.1

0.58

0.7

0.04

94

1.88

1.05

0.72

Hop leaves

37

15

3.6

15

35

2.8

0.64

49

0.98

0.48

0.11

Hop vine silage

30

15

3.1

21

20

3.3

0.37

1.8

0.22

44

53

1.06

0.52

0.18

Hops spent

89

22

4.0

28

--

1.6

0.60

39

0.78

0.40

0.00

Limestone ground

98

0.0

98

38.0

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

Linseed meal solvent

91

39

40

1.9

10

18

25

0.4

1.00

1.4

0.47

60

76

1.52

0.80

0.52

Meadow hay

92

2.5

33

0.6

0.17

1.6

--

46

0.92

0.45

0.05

Meat meal

94

55

65

9.7

29

9.4

4.74

0.6

0.50

85

71

1.42

0.73

0.46

Milo grain

89

11

60

3.2

20

0.0

0.32

0.4

0.13

17

85

1.70

0.92

0.62

Mint slug silage

27

14

1.8

24

16

1.1

0.57

55

1.10

0.54

0.21

Molasses beet

77

0.2

11

0.2

0.03

6.1

0.60

18

79

1.58

0.84

0.55

Molasses cane

76

0.0

10

1.1

0.08

3.6

0.46

30

75

1.50

0.78

0.50

Molasses cane dried

94

10

0.6

14

1.2

0.15

4.0

0.46

30

74

1.48

0.77

0.49

Molasses citrus

65

0.3

2.0

0.25

0.2

0.23

137

75

1.50

0.78

0.50

Molasses wood (Hemicellulose)

61

0.7

1.4

0.06

0.1

0.05

76

1.52

0.80

0.52

Monoammonium phosphate

98

74

0.0

24

0.3

24.70

0.0

1.42

81

0.00

0.00

0.00

Mono-dicalcium phosphate

97

0.0

94

16.7

21.10

0.1

70

0.00

0.00

0.00

Oat hay

87

2.1

30

38

63

0.2

0.22

1.0

0.30

39

59

1.18

0.58

0.28

Oat silage

34

11

25

3.8

30

10

0.4

0.25

3.4

0.32

35

60

1.20

0.59

0.30

Oat straw

90

--

2.3

41

46

70

0.3

0.10

2.2

0.22

50

1.00

0.49

0.12

Oats grain

89

13

30

4.0

12

17

31

0.1

0.40

0.5

0.22

30

74

1.48

0.77

0.49

Table 1. Continued.
DM
%

CP
%

ByPass
%

EE
%

Zn
PPM

TDN
%

DE
Mcal/
lb.

NEm
Mcal/
lb.

NEg
Mcal/
lb.

Oats groats

91

18

25

5.5

Oat meal feeding

90

17

20

6.0

0.22

93

1.86

1.03

0.71

0.25

94

1.88

1.05

0.72

Oat mill byproduct

89

3.0

21

Oat hulls

93

1.5

32

0.6

0.24

33

0.66

0.37

0.00

0.6

0.15

37

0.74

0.39

Orange pulp dried

89

1.8

0.00

0.11

82

1.64

0.88

0.59

Orchardgrass fresh immature

24

18

25

5.0

Orchardgrass hay

88

11

30

3.3

0.4

0.40

2.7

0.22

20

65

1.30

0.65

0.37

0.3

0.28

2.8

0.26

18

59

1.18

0.58

Pea vine hay

89

10

0.28

1.2

0.21

1.8

0.17

15

60

1.20

0.59

0.30

Pea vine silage

24

13

Pea straw

89

59

1.3

0.24

1.4

0.29

57

1.14

0.56

0.25

--

0.11

1.1

0.20

50

1.00

0.49

0.12

Peas cull

89

Peanut hulls

92

0.2

0.43

1.1

0.26

30

82

1.64

0.88

0.59

65

74

0.2

0.07

0.9

22

0.44

0.35

Peanut meal solvent

0.00

--

14

0.2

0.65

1.2

0.30

22

77

1.54

0.81

0.53

13

20

28

0.00

0.00

0.00

26

19

2.1

0.29

4.0

0.37

59

1.18

0.58

0.28

0.4

0.0

0.24

2.2

0.09

80

1.60

0.85

0.56

1.5

0.2

0.26

1.3

0.11

12

82

1.64

0.88

0.59

0.5

0.1

0.13

1.2

85

1.70

0.92

0.62

0.3

10

4.2

0.18

80

1.60

0.85

0.56

14

7.7

0.1

0.19

0.2

77

1.54

0.81

0.53

87

26

3.0

18

19

2.7

1.80

1.7

1.26

340

64

1.28

0.64

0.36

Poultry manure dried

89

28

2.1

13

15

35

29

9.0

2.44

2.0

0.18

445

54

1.08

0.53

0.20

Prairie hay

91

2.0

35

0.4

0.13

1.1

0.06

34

50

1.00

0.49

0.12

Rapemeal solvent

91

41

20

2.2

14

0.7

1.14

1.4

0.28

66

70

1.40

0.72

0.44

Rye straw

89

1.5

44

55

71

0.3

0.10

1.0

0.11

44

0.88

0.43

0.01

Rye grain

89

13

1.7

0.1

0.38

0.5

0.17

34

81

1.62

0.87

0.58

Safflower meal solubles

91

22

1.0

33

41

59

0.3

0.73

1.0

0.28

44

55

1.10

0.54

0.21

Safflower meal dehulled solubles

91

48

0.6

0.3

1.83

1.3

0.22

36

76

1.52

0.80

0.52

Sagebrush fresh

50

13

9.2

25

28

36

10

1.0

0.25

0.22

50

1.00

0.49

0.12

NA tripolyphos

96

0.0

96

0.0

25.98

0.0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Sorghum stover

85

2.1

33

10

0.4

0.11

1.2

54

1.08

0.53

0.20

Sorghum silage

28

50

2.8

26

28

39

0.3

0.15

1.6

0.09

24

58

1.16

0.57

0.26

Soybean hay

89

15

2.2

37

1.3

0.32

1.0

0.24

24

52

1.04

0.51

0.16

Soybean straw

88

1.4

44

54

70

1.6

0.06

0.6

0.26

42

0.84

0.42

0.00

Soybeans whole

91

42

40

19.2

10

0.3

0.63

1.8

0.24

60

92

1.84

1.02

0.70

Soybean meal solvent 44% protein

89

50

35

1.3

10

14

0.3

0.75

2.2

0.40

52

84

1.68

0.91

0.61

Soybean meal solvent 49% protein

90

55

25

1.2

10

0.3

0.71

2.2

0.42

61

87

1.74

0.95

0.64

Soybean flake (hull)

91

12

10

2.8

39

47

65

0.6

0.17

1.0

0.09

24

71

1.42

0.73

0.46

Sudangrass fresh immature

18

17

3.9

23

29

55

0.5

0.31

2.0

0.04

70

1.40

0.72

0.44

Sudangrass hay

89

1.8

36

43

68

10

0.4

0.30

2.1

0.06

30

57

1.14

0.56

0.25

Sudangrass silage

23

10

3.1

34

42

65

10

0.4

0.25

3.5

0.05

55

1.10

0.54

0.21

Sunflower meal solvent

93

50

3.1

12

40

0.5

0.80

1.1

0.33

21

65

1.30

0.65

0.37

Sunflower meal with hulls

91

32

1.4

27

0.4

0.96

1.1

0.30

100

57

1.14

0.56

0.25

Sunflower hulls

90

2.2

25

63

0.0

0.11

40

0.80

0.41

0.00

Timothy fresh pre-bloom

26

11

20

3.8

32

37

64

0.4

0.28

2.1

0.21

24

64

1.28

0.64

0.36

Timothy hay early bloom

88

12

25

2.6

33

43

68

0.5

0.25

0.9

0.21

59

1.18

0.58

0.28

Timothy hay full bloom

88

35

2.5

34

45

70

0.4

0.20

1.6

0.13

17

57

1.14

0.56

0.25

Timothy silage

34

10

25

3.4

35

0.6

0.29

1.7

0.15

59

1.18

0.58

0.28

Tomato pomace dried

92

23

10.6

26

50

55

0.4

0.59

3.6

64

1.28

0.64

0.36

Triticale silage

38

12

ADF
%

NDF
%

Ash
%

Ca
%

P
%

K
%

S
%

0.1

0.47

0.4

0.1

0.46

0.5

0.1

0.24

44

78

0.2

0.15

0.7

24

29

50

11

34

40

70

1.8

32

3.3

31

49

1.3

45

25

1.5

1.3

63

91

52

30

1.3

11

Peanut skins

92

17

22.0

Potato vine silage

15

15

3.7

Potatoes cull

21

10

Potato waste wet

14

Potato waste dried

89

Potato waste wet with lime

17

Potato waste filter cake

Poultry litter dried

Feedstuff

CF
%

Table 1. Continued.
DM
%

CP
%

ByPass
%

EE
%

Triticale

90

16

25

4.6

Urea 46% N

99

288

0.0

Wheat fresh pasture

21

28

4.0

18

30

Wheat silage

28

10

3.2

28

Wheat straw

88

1.5

42

Wheat grain

89

13

25

2.1

Wheat grain hard

89

14

2.0

Wheat grain soft

89

12

2.0

Wheat bran

89

18

4.8

Wheat midds

88

18

50

3.9

Wheat mill run

90

17

20

Wheat shorts

89

20

20

Wheatgrass crested fresh early bloom

37

11

Wheatgrass crested fresh full bloom

50

Wheatgrass crested hay

92

Wheat dried

96

Feedstuff

Zn
PPM

TDN
%

DE
Mcal/
lb.

NEm
Mcal/
lb.

NEg
Mcal/
lb.

0.17

86

1.72

0.94

0.63

0.0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.3

0.22

69

1.38

0.70

0.43

0.27

1.2

0.23

25

60

1.20

0.59

0.30

0.2

0.08

1.2

0.14

44

0.88

0.43

0.01

0.0

0.35

0.4

0.17

17

89

1.78

0.98

0.67

0.1

0.45

0.5

0.17

16

89

1.78

0.98

0.67

14

0.1

0.35

0.4

0.17

16

89

1.78

0.98

0.67

47

0.1

1.30

1.4

0.25

105

70

1.40

0.72

0.44

37

0.1

0.90

1.1

0.20

72

90

1.80

0.99

0.68

0.1

1.10

1.4

0.28

--

75

1.50

0.78

0.50

0.1

0.99

1.1

0.19

118

80

1.60

0.85

0.56

1.6

26

0.3

0.30

60

1.20

0.59

0.30

1.6

33

0.4

0.28

55

1.10

0.54

0.21

2.4

33

36

O.3

0.15

2.0

32

54

1.08

0.53

0.20

0.9

10

1.0

0.81

1.5

1.10

82

1.64

0.88

0.59

CF
%

ADF
%

NDF
%

Ash
%

Ca
%

P
%

K
%

S
%

0.1

0.34

0.4

0.0

0.00

52

14

0.4

0.40

0.3

56

85

13

11

14

4.7
5.4

10
11
16

Colorado State University, U.S. Department of

Agriculture and Colorado counties cooperating.
CSU Extension programs are available to all without
discrimination. No endorsement of products mentioned
is intended nor is criticism implied of products not
mentioned.